Re: OT: 2006 US Elections

In article <znu-B658F4.11185126082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <nowhere-B25CEF.07244425082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Travelinman <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In article <11gqeiaf4fqga09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "John" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Travelinman wrote:
> > > > In article <11gq6m58tfjnvbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > John <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Travelinman wrote:
> > > >>> In article <lloydparsons-3ACE85.13274024082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> While we've got a few political postings, I thought I would add
> > > >>>> another. Here is where I think the next US elections are headed
> > > >>>> and why.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here is what the incumbents (regardless of party) have to answer
> > > >>>> for.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Gas: Prices through the roof, with no indication of an end in
> > > >>>> sight. Doesn't matter if they are still cheaper than most of the
> > > >>>> world.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Except for one simple problem. It doesn't appear that the
> > > >>> government is responsible. The major problem is drastic increases
> > > >>> in demand from China with no corresponding increases in production.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Add in a little political instability, incessant American demand for
> > > >>> ever bigger cars, a bit of bad weather, and you've got a problem.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually you're wrong. Yet again. China has taken steps in the last
> > > >> few months to decrease consumption growth and demand is beginning to
> > > >> flatten out. The US with its glut of gas guzzling and extremely
> > > >
> > > > "has taken steps to START" and demand is "BEGINNING" to flatten out.
> > > >
> > > > Over the past few years, my statement is 100% correct. What the
> > > > situation will be next year remains to be seen.
> > > >
> > > >> unpatriotic SUVs has done almost nothing. If Bush was not so far in
> > > >> bed with the oil companies he would be out there drammaticaly
> > > >> increasing CAFE requirements(not like yesterdays wimp response) so
> > > >> growth in the future can be contained. A real President would
> > > >> provide 14 Billion in
> > > >
> > > > I agree that CAFE standards should be increased - and specifically
> > > > mentioned that. The previous administrations failed to take any
> > > > action, but the current administration is finally increasing the CAFE
> > > > standards for trucks.
> > > >
> > > >> additional tax incentives to get people into efficient hybrid
> > > >> vehicles rather than giving that money to oil companies who are now
> > > >> enjoying
> > > >
> > > > Actually, there ARE substantial tax benefits for hybrid vehicles in
> > > > the recent package.
> > > >
> > > >> record profits. The passage of the incompetent Bushs energy bill a
> > > >> couple of weeks ago sent the wrong signal to the oil markets. And
> > > >> as a result we will soon be seeing 70 buck a barrel oil.
> > > >
> > > > Yet the current administration is doing the two things you cited -
> > > > increasing CAFE standards and giving tax credits for hybrid vehicles.
> > >
> > >
> > > They should be giving LARGER tax credits for hybrids and ZERO to oil
> > > companies. The CAFE standards increase is very minor and thanks to the
> > > wimpy response the price of oil set a record today.
> >
> > One could argue that CAFE should be higher and tax credits for oil
> > companies would be lower.
> >
> > But what does that have to do with you being flat out wrong in saying
> > that the government isn't giving credits to hybrids and isn't changing
> > the CAFE standards?
>
> Of course, when Al Gore proposed a hybrid tax credit, Bush made fun of
> it.
>
> And the latest round of revisions to CAFE standards are mostly a sham.
> They divide vehicles into six classes (based on size), and set separate
> limits for each one, rather than setting company-wide averages. This
> does nothing to discourage companies from making big, gas-guzzling
> vehicles. It only discourages them from making small gas-guzzling
> vehicles, which, uh, is a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

Small, gas guzzling cars do exist: Aston Martin, Bentley Continental,
Lamborghini, Ferrari. But in the numbers that they exist, they are
statistically unimportant.
>
> The best way to lower gas consumption is to simply have the government
> attach some extra tax to gasoline to help offset some its real costs,
> and then let consumers and businesses decide how important fuel
> efficiency is.

Or, lose gasoline taxes altogether and pay what the gas REALLY costs.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... >>> additional tax incentives to get people into efficient hybrid ... >>> vehicles rather than giving that money to oil companies who are now ... >> increasing CAFE standards and giving tax credits for hybrid vehicles. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... >>> increasing CAFE standards and giving tax credits for hybrid vehicles. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... >> vehicles rather than giving that money to oil companies who are now ... > increasing CAFE standards and giving tax credits for hybrid vehicles. ... wimpy response the price of oil set a record today. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Oil is crucial to our National Security...
    ... >>Oil is crucial to our National Security... ... >>Republican ANWR drilling proponents tell us... ... Bush Bird pretty much gutted the CAFE standards upon being "appointed" ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Hybrids; A scam whose investment you never recoupe
    ... > It was mentioned two weeks ago that the new CAFE standards would hurt ... > hybrids even more than standard cars, in terms of what they claim their ... It seems to me that a true hybrid has an electric motor with ... about 80% of the hp of the gas motor and electric air conditioning. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)